Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just say, I wish we had a plan that said: In the future, we do not need all this; we do not need all these cars; we can get by with far less. But, frankly, I believe, under any scenario, for the next 25 to 30 years, our children, our way of life, our standard of living, demand that we do right and that we use that tiny piece of real estate without doing damage to this gigantic wilderness to produce energy for our great country. I thank Senator Stevens for yielding.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to honor the achievements of a New Mexico high school. Roswell High School has been honored with the esteemed designation of being named one of the top 10 schools in America by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This great honor is a tribute to the hard work and commitment to excellence demonstrated by the students, parents and families, teachers, staff, and administration of Roswell High School. In order to qualify for this award, schools must meet very strict criteria. Each school must have both a minority student population and low income rates of 50 percent or higher. In addition, the recipient must have a graduation rate of at least 90 percent with 90 percent of the previous years graduating class attending either a two- or four- year college. I am both honored and privileged to announce that the class of 2001 from Roswell High School had a graduation rate of 96 percent with 90 percent of graduating seniors enrolled in post- secondary education courses. This is truly a laudatory achievement. Roswell High's students come from many different backgrounds, but they are successful because they have the mind-set that says every student can succeed. They have embraced the differences in their student body, and they have demonstrated that every single student, regardless of background, can and will learn. It takes the dedicated leadership of a good principal, talented teaching corps and engaged parents to achieve this level. The Gates Foundation recognition is a salute to the successful learning environment achieved at Roswell High. Soon after President Bush took office, he called on Congress to fundamentally change the structure of education, and enact the most sweeping change in education in 35 years. When President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, he began a new era of improved student performance, and introduced us to an educational system that insists on accountability, results, and teacher quality. Roswell High School has embraced this philosophy and they have taken the lead in their community by insisting on teaching methods that work and taking a stand to get involved and change the expectations we have for our public schools. They deserve to be recognized for their excellence. One of the most honorable and important duties of government is to educate its children. As our Nation grows, and new generations of leaders emerge, the education they receive early on will reflect in their ability to lead us through tough times, such as the ones currently facing our great country. It is our responsibility to ensure that this new generation is prepared. Their success in the future is a direct reflection on each and every one of us. Roswell High's student success is also a tribute to this city's long history of a ``can do'' spirit, deriving from the hearty first settlers on the Chisum Trail, to the rocketry breakthroughs of Robert H. Goddard, to the constant striving of its current leaders to build the best American city possible. I congratulate Roswell High School. Its commitment to excellence is something that every high school in New Mexico and America should strive to attain.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce a bill that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to help construct and occupy part of the Hibben Center for Archaeological Research at the University of New Mexico. This bill will help the University of New Mexico finish a state of the art museum facility to store, and display the National Park Service's Chaco Collection. Let me give you a bit of background. In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt founded the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park in Northwestern New Mexico. The Monument was created to preserve the extensive prehistoric pueblo ruins in Chaco Canyon. The height of the Chaco culture began in the mid 800's and lasted over 300 years. Dozens of complex multi-storied masonry buildings containing hundreds of rooms were built over that time. These complexes were connected to communities by a network of prehistoric roads. I helped to establish the Chaco Culture National Historic Park to preserve these areas. Since 1907, the University of New Mexico and the National Park Service have been partners in this area. From 1907 to 1949, the University owned the land within the Park boundaries. During this period, Dr. Frank Hibben excavated in Chaco Canyon and remained interested in the area throughout his long career. The University built a large collection of artifacts that it retains today. In 1949, the University deeded the land to the Federal Government, and since that time, the University and the Park Service have continued a partnership through a series of memoranda of understanding. Since 1985, the NPS Chaco collections have been housed at University of New Mexico's Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. As both the University of New Mexico and the National Park Service collections have begun to grow, a new home for them is needed. To this end, Dr. Hibben began planning a new research and curation facility at the University of New Mexico. He asked the Park Service to partner with him on this project, and today, construction of the Hibben Center, a modern, professional facility to house the University of New Mexico's collections as well as the Park Service collections, is a reality. Dr. Hibben recently passed away, and left the University of New Mexico the funds to assist with this project. The partnership between the Park Service and the University will mean that the Hibben Center will hold a world-class collection of historical artifacts and will facilitate and encourage the study of these important Southwestern collections. This bill will provide authorization to pay for the Federal share of the improvement costs to the Hibben Center. This bill is long overdue, and will honor both the legacy of Dr. Hibben and the Chaco Culture. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce a bill that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to help construct and occupy part of the Hibben Center for Archaeological Research at the University of New Mexico. This bill will help the University of New Mexico finish a state of the art museum facility to store, and display the National Park Service's Chaco Collection. Let me give you a bit of background. In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt founded the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park in Northwestern New Mexico. The Monument was created to preserve the extensive prehistoric pueblo ruins in Chaco Canyon. The height of the Chaco culture began in the mid 800's and lasted over 300 years. Dozens of complex multi-storied masonry buildings containing hundreds of rooms were built over that time. These complexes were connected to communities by a network of prehistoric roads. I helped to establish the Chaco Culture National Historic Park to preserve these areas. Since 1907, the University of New Mexico and the National Park Service have been partners in this area. From 1907 to 1949, the University owned the land within the Park boundaries. During this period, Dr. Frank Hibben excavated in Chaco Canyon and remained interested in the area throughout his long career. The University built a large collection of artifacts that it retains today. In 1949, the University deeded the land to the Federal Government, and since that time, the University and the Park Service have continued a partnership through a series of memoranda of understanding. Since 1985, the NPS Chaco collections have been housed at University of New Mexico's Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. As both the University of New Mexico and the National Park Service collections have begun to grow, a new home for them is needed. To this end, Dr. Hibben began planning a new research and curation facility at the University of New Mexico. He asked the Park Service to partner with him on this project, and today, construction of the Hibben Center, a modern, professional facility to house the University of New Mexico's collections as well as the Park Service collections, is a reality. Dr. Hibben recently passed away, and left the University of New Mexico the funds to assist with this project. The partnership between the Park Service and the University will mean that the Hibben Center will hold a world-class collection of historical artifacts and will facilitate and encourage the study of these important Southwestern collections. This bill will provide authorization to pay for the Federal share of the improvement costs to the Hibben Center. This bill is long overdue, and will honor both the legacy of Dr. Hibben and the Chaco Culture. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 27, at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on various electricity proposals including, but not limited to, S. 475, the Electric Transmission and Reliability Enhancement Act of 2003. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I will not speak very long this evening. Madam President, I would like to open my remarks by just talking a minute about what one of our very distinguished Senators, Mr. Patrick Moynihan, had to say about this procedure. We are not here arguing right to life or those who favor abortion. What we are here talking about is a procedure that has been described by Senator Patrick Moynihan as follows: I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus. And what on Earth is this procedure? That is what the distinguished Senator from New York said. We can spend all the time we would like in the Chamber talking about Roe v. Wade, about right to life and pro-abortion and where the American people are, where the American women are. But that is not the issue. The issue is, where do we stand on infanticide, that is to say, where do we stand on banning a procedure that reduces--that diminishes the life of a child that has been born and has exited the uterus? And, as Senator Moynihan said, what on Earth is this procedure? I have been listening attentively. I understand the issue is a very personal one, a very serious one. It is one that is very difficult for many people to even come to the floor and debate, much less describe. I don't choose to describe the procedure. I think my friend, the former Senator from New York, does it well enough in a few words when he says in this case what we are talking about is a child that has been born and has exited the uterus. The question before us is what should we in the United States say about whether or not a doctor should accommodate the killing of a child as so described? To me, where people stand in this country on abortion or who wants Roe v. Wade and who doesn't isn't the issue. The issue is, where are we on the actual taking of the life of a child that has already been born and has exited the uterus? Roe v. Wade--where our Supreme Court chose to enter this fray--does not address this issue because they are talking about a much earlier period in the development of a fetus in the mother's womb. Partial birth abortion takes place way past the Roe v. Wade time schedule and, in fact, a child is born and then a choice is made regarding the life of that child. There are arguments made that this ban is not constitutional. This is not true. I believe, having read the case of Roe v. Wade itself and then the Nebraska case that followed, that it is perfectly clear to me that the Supreme Court is not saying you cannot have a valid statute if it properly describes the procedure and it says that a child who has been born and who has exited the uterus can be put to death. Clearly, the court is not saying in the Nebraska case, nor in the Roe v. Wade case, that you cannot legislate with regard to this issue. I don't believe one has to spend a great deal of time on the issue. It seems to me you are either against partial birth abortion or you are for it. If you are against it, you vote for the bill of the Senator from Pennsylvania. In that event, the legislation will work its way through the Congress, as it already has twice before. It will go to the President, as it has twice before. And again, we will ask the President, Will you sign it or not? I believe it is patently clear that Congress will speak again just as it has spoken heretofore twice--not just the House, the House and the Senate. Then it will go to the President, but this time it will be this President. It is my understanding he will sign it. Therefore, the overwhelming will of the U.S. Congress about an issue of grave significance and of great importance will have been decided by the policymakers and presented to the executive branch, and it will be signed. I believe we minimize this issue by saying only a few of these procedures are done. I submit that I have read literature that says between 3,000 and 5,000 of these abortions are done. I don't believe anybody can prove that there are only a few done, but I submit if there are only a few, that is a few too many. From my standpoint, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. He has carried this bill. He has argued it not only valiantly but with professionalism. I commend him and suggest to him that his many years of effort in this regard will soon see daylight. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of critical importance to our Nation's economic well-being and the security of our borders: the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act. No American border has under gone a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul since 1986, when Senator Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and I put forth a $357 million effort to modernize the southwest border. That bill pertained only to the southwest border, and a great deal was change since 1986. More importantly, much has changed since September 11, 2001. It is now critical that we look at the big picture and give our northern and southwestern borders the resources they need to address security vulnerabilities and facilitate the flow of trade. Two years ago, the General Services Administration completed a comprehensive assessment of infrastructure needs on the southwestern and northern borders of the United States. This assessment found that overhauling both borders would require $784 million. Since the publication of that assessment in February 2001, many of the needs identified remain outstanding. Many have grown, and new needs have arisen as the task of making border trade flow faster has become more complicated in the face of unprecedented security concerns. In response to our Nation's heightened security concerns, we created the Department of Homeland Security, an agency affecting virtually every Federal entity involved in border operations. Congress must give this new Department adequate resources and tools to achieve the necessary balance between security and trade considerations. The Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act proposes a number of measures meant to increase the speed at which trade crosses the border as well as beefing up security at vulnerable points on our land borders. In the recently passed omnibus appropriations bill, I secured legislative language asking the General Services Administration, in cooperation with the other border agencies involved, to complete an updated assessment of needs on our borders. The information contained in this assessment will provide a blueprint for comprehensive, targeted improvements to border infrastructure and technology. The bill I am introducing today provides $100 million per year for 5 years to implement these improvements. Congress has already passed legislation to improve security at airports and seaports, but we have not yet addressed the needs of our busiest ports, located on the United States' northern and southwestern land borders. Traditionally, tighter security requirements have come at the expense of efficient commerce across our borders. With the improvements we are proposing today, we mean to move toward a day when we can say that higher security does not penalize trade. America's two biggest trading partners are not across an ocean--they lie to the north and south of our country. In the past decade, U.S.- Canada trade has doubled, and in the same time period, trade between the United States and Mexico tripled. At the same time, our infrastructure is weakest on our land borders, and we must act quickly and decisively to prevent terrorists from exploiting this weakness. To address this threat, the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act provides for a coordinated Land Border Security Plan, including cooperation between Federal State and local entities involved at our borders, as well as the private sector. When it comes to security, everybody has a role to play, not just the government. We must enlist the help of the private sector to address security concerns on our borders. Trade and industry have made this country the economic powerhouse it is today, and we must fully involve them in protecting our country through government trade and industry partnership programs. The U.S. Customs Service has already started this process. I commend them for their quick action after the September 11 terrorist attacks in enlisting the support of private industry by quickly developing the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, C-TPAT. We need to expand these programs, especially along the northern and southwestern borders. This bill authorizes an additional $30 million and additional staff to accomplish this task. Finally, equipment and technology alone will not solve the trade and security problems on our borders. The border agencies of the Department of Homeland Security need sufficient personnel levels, and training to ensure the implementation and use of modern technology. I am pleased that the administration has taken the first step to meet this objective by announcing that they will add 1,700 new inspectors to the Bureau of Customs and Border Security of the Department of Homeland Security. The Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act increases the number of inspectors and support staff in this bureau by an additional 200 each year for 5 years. This bill also adds 100 more special agents and support staff each year for 5 years to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. I am pleased to introduced this bill today to devote greater resources to maximizing the economic possibilities of the trade flowing across our borders, while addressing the security vulnerabilities on our land borders. I am convinced that these goals are not mutually exclusive, but instead must be realized in concert. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of critical importance to our Nation's economic well-being and the security of our borders: the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act. No American border has under gone a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul since 1986, when Senator Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and I put forth a $357 million effort to modernize the southwest border. That bill pertained only to the southwest border, and a great deal was change since 1986. More importantly, much has changed since September 11, 2001. It is now critical that we look at the big picture and give our northern and southwestern borders the resources they need to address security vulnerabilities and facilitate the flow of trade. Two years ago, the General Services Administration completed a comprehensive assessment of infrastructure needs on the southwestern and northern borders of the United States. This assessment found that overhauling both borders would require $784 million. Since the publication of that assessment in February 2001, many of the needs identified remain outstanding. Many have grown, and new needs have arisen as the task of making border trade flow faster has become more complicated in the face of unprecedented security concerns. In response to our Nation's heightened security concerns, we created the Department of Homeland Security, an agency affecting virtually every Federal entity involved in border operations. Congress must give this new Department adequate resources and tools to achieve the necessary balance between security and trade considerations. The Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act proposes a number of measures meant to increase the speed at which trade crosses the border as well as beefing up security at vulnerable points on our land borders. In the recently passed omnibus appropriations bill, I secured legislative language asking the General Services Administration, in cooperation with the other border agencies involved, to complete an updated assessment of needs on our borders. The information contained in this assessment will provide a blueprint for comprehensive, targeted improvements to border infrastructure and technology. The bill I am introducing today provides $100 million per year for 5 years to implement these improvements. Congress has already passed legislation to improve security at airports and seaports, but we have not yet addressed the needs of our busiest ports, located on the United States' northern and southwestern land borders. Traditionally, tighter security requirements have come at the expense of efficient commerce across our borders. With the improvements we are proposing today, we mean to move toward a day when we can say that higher security does not penalize trade. America's two biggest trading partners are not across an ocean--they lie to the north and south of our country. In the past decade, U.S.- Canada trade has doubled, and in the same time period, trade between the United States and Mexico tripled. At the same time, our infrastructure is weakest on our land borders, and we must act quickly and decisively to prevent terrorists from exploiting this weakness. To address this threat, the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act provides for a coordinated Land Border Security Plan, including cooperation between Federal State and local entities involved at our borders, as well as the private sector. When it comes to security, everybody has a role to play, not just the government. We must enlist the help of the private sector to address security concerns on our borders. Trade and industry have made this country the economic powerhouse it is today, and we must fully involve them in protecting our country through government trade and industry partnership programs. The U.S. Customs Service has already started this process. I commend them for their quick action after the September 11 terrorist attacks in enlisting the support of private industry by quickly developing the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, C-TPAT. We need to expand these programs, especially along the northern and southwestern borders. This bill authorizes an additional $30 million and additional staff to accomplish this task. Finally, equipment and technology alone will not solve the trade and security problems on our borders. The border agencies of the Department of Homeland Security need sufficient personnel levels, and training to ensure the implementation and use of modern technology. I am pleased that the administration has taken the first step to meet this objective by announcing that they will add 1,700 new inspectors to the Bureau of Customs and Border Security of the Department of Homeland Security. The Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act increases the number of inspectors and support staff in this bureau by an additional 200 each year for 5 years. This bill also adds 100 more special agents and support staff each year for 5 years to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. I am pleased to introduced this bill today to devote greater resources to maximizing the economic possibilities of the trade flowing across our borders, while addressing the security vulnerabilities on our land borders. I am convinced that these goals are not mutually exclusive, but instead must be realized in concert. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 18, 10:00 a.m. in Room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid west. (Contact: Shelly Randel at 202-224-7933 or Jared Stubbs at 202-224-7556). Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on March 13, 2003 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366. The purpose of this hearing is to gain an understanding of the impacts of last year's fires and then look forward to the potential 2003 fire season. The hearing will give all Committee members a solid understanding of the problems faced last year and what problems the agencies and the land may face this last season. Further it will provide the basis for other fire hearings that we may want to undertake at the Subcommittee level as the year goes on. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878) or Jared Stubbs (202-224-7556). subcommittee on national parks

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Kennedy to introduce the ``Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003.'' I have mixed emotions today, because, while we are once again fighting for parity, my long time partner, Paul Wellstone is not standing across the aisle from me. Unfortunately, my colleagues are to aware of Senator Wellstone's tragic passing last year. So, while I feel a profound sense of sadness, I also have a renewed determination to win a parity victory for the millions of Americans affected by these dreaded diseases. The time has come to end this blatant pattern of discrimination against people merely because they suffer from a mental illness. The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as we must treat illnesses to our other organs, we must also treat illnesses of the brain. Building upon that, I would ask the following question: what if forty years ago our Nation had decided to exclude heart disease from health insurance coverage? Think about some of the wonderful things we would not be doing today like angioplasty, bypasses, and valve replacements and the millions of people helped because insurance covers these procedures. I would submit these medical advances have occurred because insurance dollars have followed the patient through the health care system. The presence of insurance dollars has provided an enticing incentive to treat those individuals suffering from heart disease. But sadly, those suffering from a mental illness do not enjoy those same benefits of treatment and medical advances because all too often insurance discriminates against illnesses of the brain. Individuals suffering from a mental illness face this discrimination even though medical science is in an era where we can accurately diagnosis mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be productive. I simply do not understand, why with this evidence would we not cover these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease? There simply should not be a difference in the coverage provided by insurance companies for mental health benefits and medical benefits, merely because an individual suffers from a mental illness. The introduction of our Bill marks a historic opportunity for us to take the next step towards mental health parity. The timing of our Bill is even more important because the second consecutive one year extension of the landmark Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 will sunset later this year. As my colleagues know, this is an issue I have a long involvement with and I would like to begin with a few observations. I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact a heavy toll on many, many lives. Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families, their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage. I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first start, but the Act is also not working. While there may adherence to the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits. That is why I believe it is time for a change. Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of this treatment will cost too much. But, the facts simply do not support that conclusion. First, I would direct them to the Congressional Budget Office's, CBO, score of the bill. CBO scored the cost of the bill as 0.9 percent or less than one percent. Second, I would point out the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 contains a provision allowing companies to no longer comply with the law if their costs increase by more than one percent. And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs have increased by more than one percent? Less than ten companies throughout our entire country. With that in mind I would like to share a couple of facts about mental illness with my colleagues: within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of five are mental disorders; in the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder; one in every five people--more than 40 million adults--in this Nation will be afflicted by some type of mental illness; and schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60 times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and 3 million Americans. Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long time, many who are in this field--especially on the insurance side-- have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty than you do for treatments for bipolar illness. Treatment for bipolar disorders--that is, those disorders characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs--have an 80 percent success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care. Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major depression has a 65 percent success rate. Let's compare those success rates to several important surgical procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing: Angioplasty has a 41-percent success rate and Atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate. I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003. The Bill seeks a very simple goal: provide the same mental health benefits already enjoyed by Federal employees. The Bill is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, and expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to prohibit a group health plan from imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits. Our Bill provides full parity for all categories of mental health conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, DSM IV, with coverage being contingent on the mental health condition being included in an authorized treatment plan, the treatment plan is in accordance with standard protocols, and the treatment plan meets medical necessity determination criteria. Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Bill does not require a health plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse benefits. Moreover, the Bill does not mandate the coverage of mental health benefits, but rather the Bill only applies if the plan already provides coverage for mental health benefits. In conclusion, the Bill provides mental heath benefits on par with those already enjoyed by Federal employees and members of Congress and I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Kennedy to introduce the ``Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003.'' I have mixed emotions today, because, while we are once again fighting for parity, my long time partner, Paul Wellstone is not standing across the aisle from me. Unfortunately, my colleagues are to aware of Senator Wellstone's tragic passing last year. So, while I feel a profound sense of sadness, I also have a renewed determination to win a parity victory for the millions of Americans affected by these dreaded diseases. The time has come to end this blatant pattern of discrimination against people merely because they suffer from a mental illness. The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as we must treat illnesses to our other organs, we must also treat illnesses of the brain. Building upon that, I would ask the following question: what if forty years ago our Nation had decided to exclude heart disease from health insurance coverage? Think about some of the wonderful things we would not be doing today like angioplasty, bypasses, and valve replacements and the millions of people helped because insurance covers these procedures. I would submit these medical advances have occurred because insurance dollars have followed the patient through the health care system. The presence of insurance dollars has provided an enticing incentive to treat those individuals suffering from heart disease. But sadly, those suffering from a mental illness do not enjoy those same benefits of treatment and medical advances because all too often insurance discriminates against illnesses of the brain. Individuals suffering from a mental illness face this discrimination even though medical science is in an era where we can accurately diagnosis mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be productive. I simply do not understand, why with this evidence would we not cover these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease? There simply should not be a difference in the coverage provided by insurance companies for mental health benefits and medical benefits, merely because an individual suffers from a mental illness. The introduction of our Bill marks a historic opportunity for us to take the next step towards mental health parity. The timing of our Bill is even more important because the second consecutive one year extension of the landmark Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 will sunset later this year. As my colleagues know, this is an issue I have a long involvement with and I would like to begin with a few observations. I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact a heavy toll on many, many lives. Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families, their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage. I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first start, but the Act is also not working. While there may adherence to the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits. That is why I believe it is time for a change. Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of this treatment will cost too much. But, the facts simply do not support that conclusion. First, I would direct them to the Congressional Budget Office's, CBO, score of the bill. CBO scored the cost of the bill as 0.9 percent or less than one percent. Second, I would point out the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 contains a provision allowing companies to no longer comply with the law if their costs increase by more than one percent. And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs have increased by more than one percent? Less than ten companies throughout our entire country. With that in mind I would like to share a couple of facts about mental illness with my colleagues: within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of five are mental disorders; in the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder; one in every five people--more than 40 million adults--in this Nation will be afflicted by some type of mental illness; and schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60 times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and 3 million Americans. Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long time, many who are in this field--especially on the insurance side-- have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty than you do for treatments for bipolar illness. Treatment for bipolar disorders--that is, those disorders characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs--have an 80 percent success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care. Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major depression has a 65 percent success rate. Let's compare those success rates to several important surgical procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing: Angioplasty has a 41-percent success rate and Atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate. I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003. The Bill seeks a very simple goal: provide the same mental health benefits already enjoyed by Federal employees. The Bill is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, and expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to prohibit a group health plan from imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits. Our Bill provides full parity for all categories of mental health conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, DSM IV, with coverage being contingent on the mental health condition being included in an authorized treatment plan, the treatment plan is in accordance with standard protocols, and the treatment plan meets medical necessity determination criteria. Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Bill does not require a health plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse benefits. Moreover, the Bill does not mandate the coverage of mental health benefits, but rather the Bill only applies if the plan already provides coverage for mental health benefits. In conclusion, the Bill provides mental heath benefits on par with those already enjoyed by Federal employees and members of Congress and I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask the distinguished Senator from Utah how much longer he intends to speak on this round?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to discuss for a few minutes with the Senate, and those who are interested in what we are doing here, first, the issue of the American economy and what we ought to be doing about it because the other side of the aisle--the Democratic leadership in the Senate--has decided that they are not going to permit us to vote on a most eminently qualified nominee, whose qualifications I will discuss shortly. They come to the floor and discuss an issue--to wit, the American economy and the plight of the American worker--as if they can do something about that problem, as if they have a solution to the economic woes in this country, as if they could do something in the Senate that would help the working people. They have no plan. The plans they have submitted are, according to most economists, far inferior to the only plan we have, and that is the plan of the President of the United States. Nobody should be fooled by this discussion. We can take to the floor for the next 5 weeks and have speeches by the other side of the aisle claiming that they are concerned about the working people, that we have problems in the economy, but none of that will do anything to help the American people. If we know how to help them, we have to do something. And to do something, we have to act in the Senate and the House or the President has to act. As a matter of fact, the Budget Committee, which is currently chaired by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, which I used to chair, and which 3 years ago was chaired by a Democrat because they were in control, has to produce a budget before we can do anything. So in response to all the rhetoric, we can take no action until we have a budget that lays forth what we will do, when we will do it, and how we will do it. I submit that the chairman of the Budget Committee this year will produce a budget on time. It will come to the floor on time. I predict it will be passed on time, as compared with last year when the other side of the aisle was in charge of the budget. They produced no budget. They came to the floor and said: We can't produce it because it is too hard and we don't have the votes. So we did nothing. Isn't that spectacular, that the leadership on that side of the aisle, the last time they were charged with doing something for the American people with a budget, punted? They punted. They had no plan. They produced none. Today, when we have a bona fide issue that we can do something about--that is, appoint a circuit court judge who is qualified--they have the effrontery to come to the floor and engage in a discussion as if a discussion about the plight of the American worker would solve the problems of the American worker. What will their discussions do for the American worker? Do they have some grand plan they want to come down here and talk about? They have been doing it in spite of whatever the debate is. They have been talking about whatever plan they had. I have not seen it foment any great enthusiasm on the part of those who are worried about the American economy, unless it is themselves talking to themselves. I have heard no great group of American economists saying: Boy, they have a great plan to help the American workers. Quite to the contrary. There is only one plan around that has significant support. And if they want to change it, they will have their opportunity. But it will not get changed with speeches. It will get changed when the bills come to the floor. They will be here in due course. As a matter of fact, they will be here faster than they ever got here when the Democrats were in control. We have a commitment from the chairman of the Budget Committee that it will be here on time and that it will be a plan that will be voted on by that committee and presented to us so we can vote on it on behalf of the American people. That side will have their chance to amend it, if they can. That is what we are going to do. We are going to start that and then move it right along. We will move it more expeditiously than it has ever been moved before because we have the will, we have the leadership in the White House, and we understand that we have to produce a budget resolution with the requisite mandates to the committees of the Senate to reduce taxes in whatever way we collectively want, be it the President's wishes or some other plan. But we have to do it--not speeches, not coming down here and creating something sort of a let's have another showdown here on the floor, let's talk about the economy because we don't want the Senate to vote on the issue that is justifiably before us--to wit, whether or not Miguel Estrada is entitled to have a vote. I thought it might be interesting to look at a few comparisons. I took some of these judges who sit on the DC Circuit. Let's see how they compare with the nominee and what happened to them as they came before the Senate. We have Karen Henderson, appointed by George Bush; we have Justice Rogers and David Tatel; then we have Miguel Estrada. Let's look at a comparison. These judges are there on the bench, they were appointed and confirmed. Here is one from Duke University, Judge Henderson, who attended the University of North Carolina Law School. It is interesting, as far as other things are concerned that those candidates did to prepare them to sit on the bench, such as Circuit Court clerkships, Supreme Court clerkships, and Federal Government service. Look, these others had none. Yet, they were deemed to have had adequate experience to go on the bench. And Miguel Estrada is not. Look at what he has done compared to them. Just look at the list. Obviously, he graduated from a comparably good law school. His is Harvard. One of theirs was Chicago. One of theirs was Harvard. One was North Carolina. And then look at all the other things he has done. Yet they say he is unqualified. But these two--these three get appointed. They are serving, and they are apparently qualified. Look at the really important issue. Look at how long it took this judge from the time her name was submitted to take her seat on the bench--51 days. No aspersions on this judge. She must be great. She got there in 51 days. But she had none of the experience Miguel Estrada had. She graduated from a good law school, certainly. And she went to an undergraduate school, got a degree at Duke, a great university. But how about experience, the experience of being part of the Attorney General's Office of the United States, which this candidate did under a Democrat and a Republican, a circuit court clerkship, Supreme Court clerkship? They had none of that, and look at how quickly they got appointed: 51 days, 113 days, 108 days. Look at Miguel Estrada: 650 days and counting since he was recommended until today while they continue to say: No vote. Again, we have a lot of time in the Senate. So the Democrats can come down here this afternoon, and nobody is going to keep them from debating the economy. If they want to equate a debate in the Chamber of the Senate about the economy and call it 2 million to 1, or whatever words they were using, let them have it. It doesn't do anything to help the American people and the working man. What it does is detract from the fact that they want to change the precedent of this institution. I am hopeful that before we are finished, good leaders on that side of the aisle, including the distinguished minority leader, will exercise some common sense about the future of the Senate and the appointment of Federal judges. The future of this institution as an institution that is supposed to look at the Presidential nominees and work with Presidents and then indicate whether we want to approve them or not is in real jeopardy because they are about to say that from this day forward, because of their stubbornness about this nominee, they are going to change the rules so that judges will need 60 votes, not the majority rule that we thought existed. I will not yield to my good friend. I see him standing out of the corner of my eye, and I will save his words. Please understand, I will yield soon. So what they would like to do is to change from 51 votes being necessary to approve judges of the United States under our Constitution--because of what I perceive as nothing more than an unfounded fear--and you know, their fear is not the one that has been expressed. Their fear is that this young man will be a great judge and, besides that, he is Hispanic, whether you want to argue, as some would, that a Honduran who is Hispanic is not Hispanic, which is a most incredible argument. If we were to start that across America when we are talking about Hispanics, we are going to have to decide which one is Hispanic, and if a Honduran with his family name is not one, as some would say on that side of the aisle, that is pure, absolute lunacy. So they are going to say we don't want him there, but it is not because they fear him as a circuit court judge. They fear him because he is then, if he sits on the circuit court, a legitimate, potential U.S. Supreme Court member. We have not had one who is Hispanic. They are frightened to death. While all of their fear is illegitimate, some of it is selfish fear because they think their party should be the one that nominates a Hispanic who would be on the U.S. Supreme Court. They think that because Hispanics are predominantly members of the Democratic Party, they should be the party that puts into position a Hispanic who might go to the highest bench in the country. I believe that is a terrific burden to place on this young man, who at this early age has accomplished more, by way of experience, legal accomplishments, and academic accomplishments, than any of the members sitting on the circuit court today. I finished talking about those judges who were far less experienced and how long it took them to become judges. Now I will take these judges who have comparable experience to Miguel Estrada. I find that by looking in the records and seeing what they did. In addition to the law schools and undergraduate, it looks like circuit court clerkships, looks like Supreme Court clerkship, looks like Federal Government service are pretty much equivalent to what Miguel Estrada has. Look here, it took only 15 days from the time of nomination to confirmation. Raymond Randolph, appointed by George Bush, attended Drexel University; graduated from Pennsylvania Law School, summa cum laude, much like Miguel Estrada; who was a circuit court clerk for a Second Circuit Judge; Assistant Solicitor General and Deputy Solicitor General. That is much like Miguel Estrada. It took 66 days from nomination to vote. A comparably equipped nominee, it took 66 days. Another one is Merrick Garland, appointed by President Clinton, graduate of Harvard, summa cum laude; Harvard Law School, circuit court clerk, special assistant--very much the same as Miguel. That took only 71 days. Isn't that amazing? Very comparable credentials. This man has been waiting 650 days--Miguel Estrada--and it is continuing day by day. I don't get a chance to come down here as frequently as some, although Senator Nickles and I agreed many months ago that we would be special friends to Miguel Estrada and help him as he moved through here. He has so many helpers in a job that is very simple. Senator Nickles spoke yesterday and he referred to that special kinship. I haven't been here as often as some but I have heard some very good speeches. I heard some very good efforts on the part of the other side of the aisle to justify the delays that are taking place. Some have wondered whether it does any good for Republicans to insist that this man be given an up-or-down vote, and that whatever is occurring on the other side of the aisle--I have given you four or five reasons it may be occurring--but I suggest our effort is doing some good. I will tell you that in my State three newspapers over the weekend announced in open and bold editorials that the Democrats should stop the filibuster, retreat from it, and get on with the vote. One of them is a newspaper known as the Santa Fe New Mexican. Obviously, those who know our State know that this paper--a very old newspaper--is certainly not a conservative newspaper. They say in their editorial--the lead words are--Bingaman--meaning our Senator--``Bingaman should lead the Dems' filibuster retreat.'' They have a very lengthy discussion of why my colleague, the junior Senator from New Mexico, should lead the Democrat retreat from the filibuster that is working its way on the Democrat side. I ask that the editorial be printed in the Record. [From the Santa Fe New Mexican, Feb. 24, 2003] Bingaman Should Lead Dems' Filibuster Retreat As legendary prizefighter Joe Louis said of an upcoming opponent reputed to be fast on his feet: ``He can run, but he can't hide.'' Senate Democrats, along with the Republican majority, fled Washington last week as their way of honoring Presidents' Day. The annual recess suspended their filibuster against a federal judgeship vote. The Dems are making an unwarranted stand, and an unseemly fuss, over the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The filibuster--protracted talking under senatorial privilege--had consumed a week of debate about Estrada before the senators left town. Now they're gravitating back to the Potomac, and the Dems can hide no longer. Resumption of their verbose balking will make them look ridiculous--at a time when the nation needs statesmen to stand up against the White House warmonger and his partisans commanding Capitol Hill. The Democrats have chosen a particularly poor target: Estrada, who came from Honduras as a boy and went on to lead his law class at Harvard, is better qualified than many a Democratic appointee now holding life tenure on one federal bench or another. But after confirming so many less-qualified judges while they held power, Estrada's senatorial tormentors now offer ``reasons'' why he shouldn't be confirmed; too young; too bashful about answering leading questions; appointed only because he's Hispanic--or, to some senators' way of thinking, not Hispanic enough. What really rankles with the Democrats, though, is Estrada's politics. He's a conservative. Surprise, surprise; we've got a conservative president, and it's the president who makes the appointments to the federal judiciary. As the party on the outs, the Dems had better get used to like-minded appointments from the president. If their game- playing goes on, a disgusted American public might keep George W. Bush in office for the next six years. The country certainly didn't see any reason to balance Bush against a Democratic Congress when it had a chance just a few months ago. With their spiteful behavior toward Bush appointees, the Dems aren't exactly gaining goodwill. If they find the Republican so repugnant, let 'em vote against him; at least they'll be putting their ideals--or their party colors--on display. But this is no Mr. Smith against some diabolical establishment; it's a bunch of sore losers making themselves even more so. To break a filibuster by cloture takes 60 senators. The Senate's 51 Republicans need nine of the 48 Democrats, or eight of them and ex-Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont. New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman should lead the Democratic blockade-runners. By all measures, Bingaman is a class act; a lawyer who knows that senators have no business obstructing appointments on purely political grounds. He also knows that Republicans aren't going to hold the White House forever; that sooner or later a Democratic president will be choosing judges. And he realizes that Republicans, like their mascot, have long memories. The last thing our justice system needs is an ongoing feud over appointments to district and appellate judgeships. Let Judge Estrada's confirmation be a landmark of partisan politics' retreat from the courtroom.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have a rather active University of New Mexico newspaper. It is named the Daily Lobo, after the athletic team. They have a columnist there, Scott Darnell, who wrote: Miguel Estrada isn't probably someone with an immense amount of name recognition--yet. That is this University of New Mexico editorial comment. Then they proceed to quote the distinguished Democratic Senators who have in the past stated that we should not filibuster Federal judge appointments. They cite Ted Kennedy, our distinguished Senate colleague, and Patrick Leahy, our distinguished colleague, and they quote from them as to why we should not use a filibuster when it comes to the appointment of judges. Of course, the editorial asks, Why now? The editorial proceeds to talk about this young judge and his great qualifications. It indicates that we should not make this mistake in changing what we have been doing for so many years and create a 60-vote requirement for a judgeship. Then the third article is from the largest newspaper in the State-- the Albuquerque Journal. They have a very lengthy editorial piece. The headline is ``End Filibuster, Put Court Nominee to Vote.'' That is the daily Albuquerque newspaper. They merely conclude that the time has come. That is from my home State. I suggest when you put the three together, they have gotten the message very well. They have heard both sides. They quote arguments made on the other side and find them without merit, and they proceed to indicate that, without question, the time has come to have a vote. I ask unanimous consent that those two articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I repeat, it is one thing to delay; it is another thing to talk a lot; and it is yet another thing to attempt to get the issue that is before us and find a way around it and cloud the issue. That is all that is happening this morning with the discussion by the Democratic leadership, joined by certain Democratic Senators, when they argue that Republicans, by insisting that we vote on this nominee, are in some way failing to do justice to the economic problems that exist in our country. I hope it doesn't take a lot more discussion for people to understand that is absolutely an untruth. It is an absolutely irrelevant argument. They can talk all they like about the economy and quit talking about Miguel Estrada and not one single thing will happen to benefit the American workers, not one thing. We need to do something, and what we must do is decide whether we want the President's plan or some modification of it. The only way we can do that is to move with dispatch on the issues before us, those issues, in the way prescribed under our rules. There is no one suggesting we should throw away our rules and pass a plan tomorrow morning. Nobody is suggesting we do that. In due course, in the matter of only a few weeks, we will be voting on whose plan should be adopted to help the American economy move forward. I submit that the facts are overwhelming that the arguments against Miguel Estrada are not justified. Those arguments do not justify these delays. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, in accordance with Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friends Senator Lincoln, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Thomas to introduce the ``Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003,'' a bill to address the inequality that exists in Medicare reimbursement levels to urban and rural physicians. Nothing is more important to our families than accessible and available health care. When we become ill and need treatment, we must turn to our doctors for help. But, imagine this, a hospital filled with the latest technology, and no doctors to administer treatment. Does this sound ridiculous? It's not. Rural patients often have difficulty obtaining timely care due to a shortage of physicians, and, the problem I have described is not just occurring in my home State of New Mexico, forty-one other States are experiencing similar problems because of a common set of rules and procedures. In most rural areas, Federal policy undermines a doctor's ability to see Medicare patients by establishing disparity in reimbursement levels. Rural physicians are among the lowest Medicare dollar reimbursement recipients in the country, and I submit that this is the reason these areas cannot effectively recruit and retain their physicians. Medicare payments for physician services are based upon a fee schedule, intended to relate payments for a given service to the actual resources used in providing that service. One component of this fee schedule is ``physician work.'' CMS defines ``physician work'' as the amount of time, skill and intensity necessary to provide service. Each component of the fee schedule is multiplied by a geographic index; designed to adjust for variations in cost. The geographic index as it relates to ``physician work'' is lower in rural areas than in metropolitan/urban areas. Thus, although rural physicians put in as much or even more time, skill, and intensity into their work as physicians in metropolitan/urban areas; rural physicians are paid less for their work. This practice is unfair and it is discriminatory. There is no reason doctors in Albuquerque, NM should be paid less for their time than doctors in New York City. Doctors should be valued equally, irrespective of geography. The ``Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003'' fixes this problem. The Bill creates a more equitable Medicare reimbursement formula for doctors in 56 different fee schedule areas in 42 different States. It continues to apply the current formula to determine geographic index as it relates to physician work. However, once the calculation has been completed, The Secretary will increase the work geographic index to one for any locality for which such index is below one. Those fee schedule areas that are currently at or above one will not be affected by this legislation. Our Bill builds upon the simple proposition that increased Medicare Physician reimbursements improve patient access to care and the ability of states to recruit and retain physicians. If Medicare physician reimbursement rates are raised, patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries. Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleagues Senator Lincoln, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Thomas on this very important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friends Senator Lincoln, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Thomas to introduce the ``Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003,'' a bill to address the inequality that exists in Medicare reimbursement levels to urban and rural physicians. Nothing is more important to our families than accessible and available health care. When we become ill and need treatment, we must turn to our doctors for help. But, imagine this, a hospital filled with the latest technology, and no doctors to administer treatment. Does this sound ridiculous? It's not. Rural patients often have difficulty obtaining timely care due to a shortage of physicians, and, the problem I have described is not just occurring in my home State of New Mexico, forty-one other States are experiencing similar problems because of a common set of rules and procedures. In most rural areas, Federal policy undermines a doctor's ability to see Medicare patients by establishing disparity in reimbursement levels. Rural physicians are among the lowest Medicare dollar reimbursement recipients in the country, and I submit that this is the reason these areas cannot effectively recruit and retain their physicians. Medicare payments for physician services are based upon a fee schedule, intended to relate payments for a given service to the actual resources used in providing that service. One component of this fee schedule is ``physician work.'' CMS defines ``physician work'' as the amount of time, skill and intensity necessary to provide service. Each component of the fee schedule is multiplied by a geographic index; designed to adjust for variations in cost. The geographic index as it relates to ``physician work'' is lower in rural areas than in metropolitan/urban areas. Thus, although rural physicians put in as much or even more time, skill, and intensity into their work as physicians in metropolitan/urban areas; rural physicians are paid less for their work. This practice is unfair and it is discriminatory. There is no reason doctors in Albuquerque, NM should be paid less for their time than doctors in New York City. Doctors should be valued equally, irrespective of geography. The ``Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003'' fixes this problem. The Bill creates a more equitable Medicare reimbursement formula for doctors in 56 different fee schedule areas in 42 different States. It continues to apply the current formula to determine geographic index as it relates to physician work. However, once the calculation has been completed, The Secretary will increase the work geographic index to one for any locality for which such index is below one. Those fee schedule areas that are currently at or above one will not be affected by this legislation. Our Bill builds upon the simple proposition that increased Medicare Physician reimbursements improve patient access to care and the ability of states to recruit and retain physicians. If Medicare physician reimbursement rates are raised, patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries. Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleagues Senator Lincoln, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Thomas on this very important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Grants, NM, and the 20th Annual Mount Taylor Winter Quadrathlon. ``The Ultimate Challenge'' is a great program that encourages tourism and health in New Mexico. I commend the people of Grants and Cibola County for their initiative to promote tourism in New Mexico through conducting the world-renowned Mount Taylor Winter Quadrathlon. ``The Ultimate Challenge'' is an innovative program which has adapted the traditional Triathlon to the varying terrain of Grants and the surrounding area. Instead of being a traditional Triathlon, which includes biking, running, and swimming, contestants have the opportunity to bike, run, ski and snow-shoe. The Quadrathlon begins in Grants at 6,500 feet and continues all the way up Mount Taylor to an elevation of 11,301 feet, and concludes with a return trek to Grants. This multi-sport event allows those in the race to see the bountiful beauties of New Mexico, from our pristine deserts to our snow-covered mountains. The race, which starts out with a 13-mile bike ride, begins in the desert; as the competition continues up Mount Taylor, the athletes are able to see 100 miles from horizon to horizon on a clear day and are given the opportunity to appreciate why New Mexico is indeed the Land of Enchantment. I applaud Grants for being innovative in not only promoting tourism, but also by encouraging healthy lifestyles throughout their community and the world. The Quadrathlon, which solicits participants from New Mexico and across the globe, has improved the lives of many New Mexicans by giving them healthy goals for which to strive. Grants has fostered a world renowned event by promoting the Quadrathlon for the past 20 years. I am proud to recognize Grants and the surrounding community for continually supporting such a beneficial event. On behalf of the Senate and the State of New Mexico, I thank these special New Mexicans for making a difference in our lives.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation entitled the ``Military Family Access to Dental Care Act.'' This legislation, while limited in its scope, will have a profound effect on the lives of our military service members and their families particularly those serving our country at remote rural bases. Current law provides reimbursement for military dependents who, when referred, must travel at least one-hundred miles to receive specialty health care. However, specialty dental care has not been interpreted within the scope of this provision. In a rural State like New Mexico, this exclusion has a real impact on quality of life. For example, a military dependent stationed at Cannon Air Force Base in eastern New Mexico is not able to receive periodontic or orthodontic care in nearby Clovis these specialties are simply not available. Instead, to receive such care, that dependent would have to travel 225 miles to Albuquerque, 110 miles to Lubbock, Tx, or 104 miles to Amarillo often two or three times to alleviate a special dental problem. The cost of traveling these long distances can eat away at a military family's income and degrade their quality of life. The legislation I propose expands the scope of existing law to ensure that travel of at least one-hundred miles for referred specialty dental care is reimbursable. It is my firm belief that this small but practical bill can improve the lives of many military families, especially those assigned to bases in the West. What is more, it sends a signal to our military personnel and their families that we recognize the sacrifices they make for us and want to respond by addressing their needs whenever we can. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation entitled the ``Military Family Access to Dental Care Act.'' This legislation, while limited in its scope, will have a profound effect on the lives of our military service members and their families particularly those serving our country at remote rural bases. Current law provides reimbursement for military dependents who, when referred, must travel at least one-hundred miles to receive specialty health care. However, specialty dental care has not been interpreted within the scope of this provision. In a rural State like New Mexico, this exclusion has a real impact on quality of life. For example, a military dependent stationed at Cannon Air Force Base in eastern New Mexico is not able to receive periodontic or orthodontic care in nearby Clovis these specialties are simply not available. Instead, to receive such care, that dependent would have to travel 225 miles to Albuquerque, 110 miles to Lubbock, Tx, or 104 miles to Amarillo often two or three times to alleviate a special dental problem. The cost of traveling these long distances can eat away at a military family's income and degrade their quality of life. The legislation I propose expands the scope of existing law to ensure that travel of at least one-hundred miles for referred specialty dental care is reimbursable. It is my firm belief that this small but practical bill can improve the lives of many military families, especially those assigned to bases in the West. What is more, it sends a signal to our military personnel and their families that we recognize the sacrifices they make for us and want to respond by addressing their needs whenever we can. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Might I inquire from the Senator, how much longer do you think you will be?

Mr. DOMENICI. I had assumed your usual.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, anyone who doubted whether or not there were certain Democrats who intend to filibuster this nomination just heard a leading Senator who is going to espouse that. Two weeks of debate, he said; he hopes we will still be discussing this nomination then. It is the desire of at least one Senator, the Senator from New York, that this nominee not be approved, and that we will not have the opportunity to vote because they will not give us time. Madam President, I come from a State, New Mexico, where 42 percent of the people are from what we generally call Hispanic descent--42 percent. Some people wonder why the Senator from New Mexico has different views than some of you around here. Well, we have 8 to 10 percent Native American Indians. If my arithmetic is right, when you add the two, there is about 51 percent either Hispanics or Native American Indians in my State. I say right up front, I am not afraid of the views of a Hispanic whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. I don't niche Hispanics because they are Democrats and say they must be liberals who I would not approve for anything. Neither do I niche Republican Hispanics and say because they are Republicans--there is an implication they should not be, they should be Democrats--but if they are, they obviously should not be on the bench because they are obviously too conservative, or they would not be Hispanic Republicans. I believe we are perilously close to determining it is OK to discriminate against Hispanics if they are conservative. I don't even know how conservative Mr. Estrada is, but the allegation is he is too conservative. He happens to also be Hispanic. Just imagine, Madam President, if there was a Democrat nominee with the name Espinoza--I just picked one that came to mind--and Republicans found something wrong with him as a candidate--imagine what they might be saying: Republicans oppose a Hispanic for the circuit court of the United States. They don't want people of color on the circuit court of appeals. I have not said that of the Democrats yet, but I am getting perilously close to wondering why, if he does not know enough about this nominee, he would call him unqualified for the bench in the circuit court. Is it because of his color? Is it because of from where he came? He epitomizes the American dream beyond what anyone in this Senate would probably epitomize. Coming here at 17 years of age and speaking no English; in a short period of time he learned the English language; graduated magna cum laude from law school, none other than Harvard--and we have people here wondering whether he is qualified. In New Mexico, nobody would say of that man, Miguel Estrada: He is not qualified because he probably is too conservative, because he joined the Republican Party or, at least, he is one of them. I believe that would be wrong. Again, I want to make sure everybody understands that I am doing my very best to tell it like I see it, but I am also doing a bit of surmising because my good friend from New York has not been here very long, and we welcome him. But there is no doubt in my mind that if they ever get a nominee on their side of the aisle who is a Hispanic Democrat for the circuit court of the United States and a Republican or a group of them are against that nominee, they might say the Republicans do not want to put a Hispanic on the bench.